Scan barcode
sophronisba's review against another edition
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
There are many ways in which this book doesn't age well -- its treatment of race and gender, in particular, feel incredibly dated -- but I still found it intriguing, despite the fact that I don't think Booth Tarkington understands his main character well at all. Tarkington does have a keen observational eye, which makes this book feel more like a tragedy of manners than realism.
wathohuc's review against another edition
3.0
Booth Tarkington is one of only four repeat winners of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. "Alice Adams" was the second of Tarkington's Pulitzer winning novels. There is a kind of easy style to Tarkington's writing that might justify winning the award, but I can't help thinking that the two novels ("The Magnificent Ambersons" and "Alice Adams") just really aren't "great" literature. And they aren't really pleasant or redeeming stories, even though I think they are intended as such. They are really both reflective of the underbelly of modernizing capitalism contrasted with a fading aristocratic sensibility. And the human vanity that emerges in these novels is actually kind of ugly to watch emerge.
The heroine of this particular novel, Alice Adams, is not a very likable or nice person; and though we are supposed to accept her redemption at the end of the novel as something that makes her nice, I still didn't buy it. I have come to think that Tarkington's heroes are really symbols of an old order - or conventional way of thinking - that are themselves "mean" behind the facade of "high society culture," but symbols also of a truer beauty that comes out of the decay of this culture. I just don't think that what comes out of this decay is necessarily better. The old order and that which is replacing it both seem rather pathetic and crass.
But I do think what's good about these themes that pepper all of Tarkington's work in some way is that it's a commentary on industrialization such that the dirtiness of it isn't really compensated by the advances it produced.
Decent writing, but definitely a period piece that doesn't have much durability beyond the historical moment it represents.
The heroine of this particular novel, Alice Adams, is not a very likable or nice person; and though we are supposed to accept her redemption at the end of the novel as something that makes her nice, I still didn't buy it. I have come to think that Tarkington's heroes are really symbols of an old order - or conventional way of thinking - that are themselves "mean" behind the facade of "high society culture," but symbols also of a truer beauty that comes out of the decay of this culture. I just don't think that what comes out of this decay is necessarily better. The old order and that which is replacing it both seem rather pathetic and crass.
But I do think what's good about these themes that pepper all of Tarkington's work in some way is that it's a commentary on industrialization such that the dirtiness of it isn't really compensated by the advances it produced.
Decent writing, but definitely a period piece that doesn't have much durability beyond the historical moment it represents.
ejdecoster's review against another edition
2.0
For book club. I didn't get totally into the book - the writing felt dated and heavy, and the plot a little sluggish - but there were interesting character elements for discussion and it was nice to read something a little out of my usual zone.
mjacton's review against another edition
3.0
This is the fourth Pulitzer Prize-winning novel in my progression through the winners in chronological order. And this is the second novel on the list by Booth Tarkington, so it's hard not to compare this novel to The Magnificent Ambersons.
Though I gave them both three stars--they're both well-written, regional novels stuck in their time--I would give this novel half a star more for its somewhat more complex narrative and nuanced take on both gender and race.
That is NOT to say that either gender or race issues are treated in any way that is just or acceptable, especially race issues. I'm a white male, so I have to write as one. While between The Magnificent Ambersons and Alice Adams, Tarkington seems to treat African Americans more complexly in Alice Adams, at the same time, he treats them as more explicitly less human in the present novel. There are simply more exceptions.
As for gender issues, well, again I'm male, but there's something to be said for the final condition of Alice...but that's a scant victory and would mean spoilers.
As with The Magnificent Ambersons, this novel is best left in its time and place except as a study of that time and place. It's well-written enough with an engaging plot, but there are any number of those that would challenge the reader more.
Though I gave them both three stars--they're both well-written, regional novels stuck in their time--I would give this novel half a star more for its somewhat more complex narrative and nuanced take on both gender and race.
That is NOT to say that either gender or race issues are treated in any way that is just or acceptable, especially race issues. I'm a white male, so I have to write as one. While between The Magnificent Ambersons and Alice Adams, Tarkington seems to treat African Americans more complexly in Alice Adams, at the same time, he treats them as more explicitly less human in the present novel. There are simply more exceptions.
As for gender issues, well, again I'm male, but there's something to be said for the final condition of Alice...but that's a scant victory and would mean spoilers.
As with The Magnificent Ambersons, this novel is best left in its time and place except as a study of that time and place. It's well-written enough with an engaging plot, but there are any number of those that would challenge the reader more.
skendall's review against another edition
lighthearted
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Written in 1921, it is set in an unnamed small American city--mention of inescapable soot makes it seem like it's in coal or manufacturing country. The main characters are white, and though they are not overtly cruel to the black people who appear or are mentioned, they talk about them in rather dehumanized terms. The N word is not used but just about every other term that now seems objectionable. Maybe an accurate reflection of the time and place, but just a heads up for readers.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racial slurs
msand3's review against another edition
3.0
Tarkington is quintessential American middlebrow writing. Simple plots and quickly-moving dialogue. Entertaining enough not to be boring, but with just enough gravitas to be considered serious literature (at least in the teens and twenties). I've seen the Hepburn film a couple times, so I couldn’t read this novel without imagining her and Fred MacMurray trading dialogue. The dinner scene is the most memorable part of the film, which is exactly the case in this novel. Beyond that chapter, like with [b:The Magnificent Ambersons|127028|The Magnificent Ambersons (The Growth Trilogy, #2)|Booth Tarkington|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1171925907l/127028._SX50_.jpg|365539], I found the book to be overwhelmingly average. Tarkington lacks the regional flair of Garland or Cather, the biting intellectual satire and cynicism of Lewis, the dazzling style of Wharton or Fitzgerald, the grand sweep of Dreiser, the humor of Lardner (although Tarkington tries mightily), and the experimental form and thematic boundary-pushing of the later modernists. His work is the definition of "fair-to-middlin'."
mellambert's review against another edition
2.0
In the same fashion of the other book I read by Takington, "The Magnificent Ambersons," this book started very slow. Unfortunately it didn't pick up. Maybe I just don't get it, and maybe I'm missing something completely with this book but I just didn't like it.
I found the characters to be extremely unlikable, their passions were a bore, the father had no backbone and the entire book crept along so slow I thought it would never end. And maybe that's the point of this book. Maybe you're not supposed to like any of them, and you're supposed to learn from their self-infatuated, greedy lives.
But I don't have to read a book to find those kinds of people so I'd rather not read about them.
Anyway, I found this book to be totally worth missing. If you are going to read a book from the early Pulitzer prize winners then read "His Family," and then promptly move on.
I found the characters to be extremely unlikable, their passions were a bore, the father had no backbone and the entire book crept along so slow I thought it would never end. And maybe that's the point of this book. Maybe you're not supposed to like any of them, and you're supposed to learn from their self-infatuated, greedy lives.
But I don't have to read a book to find those kinds of people so I'd rather not read about them.
Anyway, I found this book to be totally worth missing. If you are going to read a book from the early Pulitzer prize winners then read "His Family," and then promptly move on.
peixinhodeprata's review against another edition
4.0
I had a strange start with this book. It was so weird, it almost seemed surreal. Once I realized it was from 1921 (for some reason in my mind I thought it was more recent), it all started making sense to me, and I took it for what it was, a brilliant satire and comedy of costumes.
All characters are so well designed to make a point, and to signify something. The theatrical mother, the weak father, the con artist brother. But the best of all is surely Alice herself, that lives in a world that is a stage where she is always performing.
Loved it. Specially because I was expecting nothing from it.
”It’s funny; but we don’t often make people think what we want ‘em to, mama. You do thus and so; and you tell yourself, ‘Now, seing me do thus and so, people will naturally think this and that’; but they don’t. They think something else - usually what you don’t want ‘em to. I suppose about the only good in pretending is the fun we get out of fooling ourselves that we fool somebody.”
All characters are so well designed to make a point, and to signify something. The theatrical mother, the weak father, the con artist brother. But the best of all is surely Alice herself, that lives in a world that is a stage where she is always performing.
Loved it. Specially because I was expecting nothing from it.
”It’s funny; but we don’t often make people think what we want ‘em to, mama. You do thus and so; and you tell yourself, ‘Now, seing me do thus and so, people will naturally think this and that’; but they don’t. They think something else - usually what you don’t want ‘em to. I suppose about the only good in pretending is the fun we get out of fooling ourselves that we fool somebody.”
schmoterp's review against another edition
4.0
Not in 10,000 years would I have chosen to read this book on its own, but my attempt at understanding history and culture through a chronological read of Pulitzer winners has led me to its 4th recipient in Tarkington's Alice Adams. I have been pleasantly surprised by this one, compared to earlier Tarkington works. At its core, it's a story about knowing oneself and though it's written almost a century ago, for me it still can be influential to readers today. Her heroism is understated but it is still there nonetheless.
My "review" almost reads like a book report so I'm just going to "spoiler" the majority of it.
Alice, like many of the affluent youthful girls of her time, is principally concerned with marriage. Today, America practices a relative meritocracy (insert anti-capitalist joke here) but post-WWI, America was still grappling with a change in business culture and marriage still predominantly followed the money. Nepotism and familial betrothals were methods to keeping the money close - a concept that Tarkington directly describes as Arthur Russell is introduced as the likely pairing for Mildred Palmer, Alice's "most intimate friend". Arthur is just about as perfect for Alice as can be. He's tall, handsome, has money, and inexplicable he is head-over-heals for Alice. The trouble is, Alice is not affluent; she and her family have no money. There was a time when Alice's father may have had the potential for growth within the powerful, industrious firm owned by J.A. Lamb, but he was not anymore and hadn't been in the story's recent history. As such, Alice's social standing was a mockery among her old acquaintances. I believe Alice knew this, at least at some level. If that is true, then Tarkington is commenting about the power social pressure has on individual thinking. Routinely, Alice contemplates her rationale for doing things that are questionable to her: picking flowers manually, cleaning soot-stained baseboards, the arrangement of flowers. She does these things because they are taught to her by her "friends" but more importantly, they are the expectations of her mother. When her father is threatened, she immediately goes to his aid throughout the book; but when she is threatened, she retreats and gives in to her mother. It is only when she finally accepts her reality that Alice is able to stand up to her mother and to do so without hesitation or contempt.
I did find her final dinner with Arthur to be extremely sad. Other reviewers found Mr. Russell's character to be annoying and shallow but I found him to be quite the opposite. I wasn't a budding adult in the 1920's but I'm not convinced that the feelings on being intoxicated with a girl have changed too much since then. Alice was a pretty girl, but...or rather, AND, she was whimsical and flirty. Although not many descriptions were given to other young females, the reader is definitely given the impression that Alice is different than the likes of Henrietta Lamb and Mildred Palmer. If I saw such a vision at a dance, I imagine I would have been taken with her too. I found Arther's approach to her to be completely believable and genuine. But...what I do not understand is how he did never come back to see her. His greatest intentions of staying infatuated with her were doused when he heard things about her family, her greatest fear and the fear she herself planted. Their final conservation outside her home was of him sullenly denying anything was the matter and her insistence that there must be because......well, she was Alice Adams so there must be something. I believe that all things being equal he would have come to love her the way good men love their women; and I believe that all things being equal, she would have returned his love in the way she clearly did. It's sad because social pressures convinced her to pretend to be someone she wasn't when she was perfectly perfect in his eyes and social pressures convinced him that to be with her, supposedly, wouldn't be worth the trouble despite his heart crying otherwise.
Nevertheless, Alice ends her summer contented with her uncertain but almost assuredly mundane future. She has realized that she does not want to be foolish anymore pretending to be someone she clearly is not. There is a bravery in this that I admire. We are taught all our lives with falsehoods that we can be "anything we want", but this is at best fodder for an office inspiration poster and at worst complete bullshit. The reality is that we cannot be whatever we want - but we can be what we are. Alice, in the end, accepts who she is and where she comes from and finds a peace that many people, including her mother, ever attain.
On Mrs. Adams, she is, of course, the true antagonist of the story. There really is no other option. She is manipulative, conniving, and despite her apparent selflessness, she is entirely self-serving. She cared not for her past romance with her husband. She cared mostly of social status and, by extension, the money required to achieve it. But past all that, I was more struck by her dominance of the household. In modern society, I have observed that "traditional" male dominance is all but entirely removed from culture. The powerful female character is front-and-center of popular cinematic outlets. So, it was a wonder to me that in post-WWI the father of the house is so dominated by his "subservient" wife. Mr. Adams was bullied to trespass his employer knowing full well it was wrong. Mrs. Adams questioned her husband at every possible turn, unless he was doing as she wished. At first, I was generally sympathetic for her, trying to believe that she was only doing what she thought was best. But ultimately, she failed to ever learn the important lesson previously discussed, which may have been why Alice eventually could.
In contrast, I feel that Tarkington ended up giving Mr. Adam's too much credit. For him, things ended well enough. He had no true ambition for greatness. His greatest ambition was loyalty which, in all likelihood, he probably perceived he kept with Mr. Lamb. He had no inclination for social status but just that his family was cared for and as happy as one could expect. Still, he got off easy and I feel the author gave the perception that his actions were alright.
Regarding the racial language - this was most unfortunate. Black characters in the book were all servants to white people and this is generally to be expected given the time and place of the story. At one point, Tarkington describes Alice as being afraid to reveal her "niggardliness" which I originally felt was a direct comparison of the Adams' to the lower caste in their society, a way to demonstrate the equalities in the races. However, particularly with the way Alice addressed the waitress, Gertrude, I found the whole experience disconcerting and tainted. I'm not sure if Tarkington was trying to address race in past-WWI high society, but it felt, in a word, wrong.
I really enjoyed this book. I am not quite sure if I would have liked it better if the ending were different but despite that I still very much enjoyed it. I don't think I can pinpoint exactly my reluctance for giving it a full 5 stars except that it wasn't THAT good, just really good. I do admire Alice's courage and, in another life, I think I would have loved to meet her.
My "review" almost reads like a book report so I'm just going to "spoiler" the majority of it.
Alice, like many of the affluent youthful girls of her time, is principally concerned with marriage. Today, America practices a relative meritocracy (insert anti-capitalist joke here) but post-WWI, America was still grappling with a change in business culture and marriage still predominantly followed the money. Nepotism and familial betrothals were methods to keeping the money close - a concept that Tarkington directly describes as Arthur Russell is introduced as the likely pairing for Mildred Palmer, Alice's "most intimate friend". Arthur is just about as perfect for Alice as can be. He's tall, handsome, has money, and inexplicable he is head-over-heals for Alice. The trouble is, Alice is not affluent; she and her family have no money. There was a time when Alice's father may have had the potential for growth within the powerful, industrious firm owned by J.A. Lamb, but he was not anymore and hadn't been in the story's recent history. As such, Alice's social standing was a mockery among her old acquaintances. I believe Alice knew this, at least at some level. If that is true, then Tarkington is commenting about the power social pressure has on individual thinking. Routinely, Alice contemplates her rationale for doing things that are questionable to her: picking flowers manually, cleaning soot-stained baseboards, the arrangement of flowers. She does these things because they are taught to her by her "friends" but more importantly, they are the expectations of her mother. When her father is threatened, she immediately goes to his aid throughout the book; but when she is threatened, she retreats and gives in to her mother. It is only when she finally accepts her reality that Alice is able to stand up to her mother and to do so without hesitation or contempt.
I did find her final dinner with Arthur to be extremely sad. Other reviewers found Mr. Russell's character to be annoying and shallow but I found him to be quite the opposite. I wasn't a budding adult in the 1920's but I'm not convinced that the feelings on being intoxicated with a girl have changed too much since then. Alice was a pretty girl, but...or rather, AND, she was whimsical and flirty. Although not many descriptions were given to other young females, the reader is definitely given the impression that Alice is different than the likes of Henrietta Lamb and Mildred Palmer. If I saw such a vision at a dance, I imagine I would have been taken with her too. I found Arther's approach to her to be completely believable and genuine. But...what I do not understand is how he did never come back to see her. His greatest intentions of staying infatuated with her were doused when he heard things about her family, her greatest fear and the fear she herself planted. Their final conservation outside her home was of him sullenly denying anything was the matter and her insistence that there must be because......well, she was Alice Adams so there must be something. I believe that all things being equal he would have come to love her the way good men love their women; and I believe that all things being equal, she would have returned his love in the way she clearly did. It's sad because social pressures convinced her to pretend to be someone she wasn't when she was perfectly perfect in his eyes and social pressures convinced him that to be with her, supposedly, wouldn't be worth the trouble despite his heart crying otherwise.
Nevertheless, Alice ends her summer contented with her uncertain but almost assuredly mundane future. She has realized that she does not want to be foolish anymore pretending to be someone she clearly is not. There is a bravery in this that I admire. We are taught all our lives with falsehoods that we can be "anything we want", but this is at best fodder for an office inspiration poster and at worst complete bullshit. The reality is that we cannot be whatever we want - but we can be what we are. Alice, in the end, accepts who she is and where she comes from and finds a peace that many people, including her mother, ever attain.
On Mrs. Adams, she is, of course, the true antagonist of the story. There really is no other option. She is manipulative, conniving, and despite her apparent selflessness, she is entirely self-serving. She cared not for her past romance with her husband. She cared mostly of social status and, by extension, the money required to achieve it. But past all that, I was more struck by her dominance of the household. In modern society, I have observed that "traditional" male dominance is all but entirely removed from culture. The powerful female character is front-and-center of popular cinematic outlets. So, it was a wonder to me that in post-WWI the father of the house is so dominated by his "subservient" wife. Mr. Adams was bullied to trespass his employer knowing full well it was wrong. Mrs. Adams questioned her husband at every possible turn, unless he was doing as she wished. At first, I was generally sympathetic for her, trying to believe that she was only doing what she thought was best. But ultimately, she failed to ever learn the important lesson previously discussed, which may have been why Alice eventually could.
In contrast, I feel that Tarkington ended up giving Mr. Adam's too much credit. For him, things ended well enough. He had no true ambition for greatness. His greatest ambition was loyalty which, in all likelihood, he probably perceived he kept with Mr. Lamb. He had no inclination for social status but just that his family was cared for and as happy as one could expect. Still, he got off easy and I feel the author gave the perception that his actions were alright.
Regarding the racial language - this was most unfortunate. Black characters in the book were all servants to white people and this is generally to be expected given the time and place of the story. At one point, Tarkington describes Alice as being afraid to reveal her "niggardliness" which I originally felt was a direct comparison of the Adams' to the lower caste in their society, a way to demonstrate the equalities in the races. However, particularly with the way Alice addressed the waitress, Gertrude, I found the whole experience disconcerting and tainted. I'm not sure if Tarkington was trying to address race in past-WWI high society, but it felt, in a word, wrong.
I really enjoyed this book. I am not quite sure if I would have liked it better if the ending were different but despite that I still very much enjoyed it. I don't think I can pinpoint exactly my reluctance for giving it a full 5 stars except that it wasn't THAT good, just really good. I do admire Alice's courage and, in another life, I think I would have loved to meet her.